LAWS(MAD)-2018-8-1004

K. JANAMEJEYAN Vs. EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION

Decided On August 01, 2018
K. Janamejeyan Appellant
V/S
EMPLOYEES PROVIDENT FUND ORGANISATION Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The relief sought for in this writ petition is for a direction to direct the respondents to pay correct pension amount to the petitioner under Employees' Pension Scheme, 1995 on par with one Thiru Seetharaman from the date the petitioner became eligible for monthly pension with all arrears and future pension.

(2.) The learned counsel, appearing on behalf of the writ petitioner, made a submission that the petitioner joined the Tamil Nadu Minerals Limited (TAMIN) as unskilled worker on 1.4.1982 in Kunnam Black Granite Quarry. Thereafter, he was promoted as semiskilled and skilled and finally as super-skilled workman. The writ petitioner was allowed to retire from service on 18.8.2009, on attaining the age of superannuation. The writ petitioner joined the services of TAMIN Provident Fund Contributions and Pension Contributions were deducted from his salary and remitted to the EPF Organisation. The writ petitioner was enrolled under Employees' Pension Scheme on 16.11.1995. On retirement, he submitted Form 10-D for sanction of pension under EPS 1995. The second respondent by order dated 16.8.2010, sanctioned the monthly pension to the writ petitioner a sum of Rs. 1,475.00 with effect from 19.8.2009 and also ordered payment of arrears of pension at Rs. 18,290.00 in pension payment order dated 16.8.2010.

(3.) The writ petitioner found that his colleague, who worked along with him, one Thiru.Seetharaman was getting higher pension of Rs. 1,568.00, though he joined the service only on 1.4.1984. Thus, he submitted an application for revision of his pension. However, the respondents have not considered his case on the ground that the writ petitioner has served about 13 years 9 months and 3 days. Thus, the said period of service was reckoned. For the purpose of calculating pension, the qualifying service of 13 years alone was taken. Contrarily, the learned counsel for the writ petitioner states that the writ petitioner had already served 13 years 9 months and 3 days and the pension to be reckoned by calculating the qualifying service as 14 years.